The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Kimi gets a halo

Kimi Raikkonen became the first F1 driver to try the halo safety cockpit system, on his Ferrari, during the third day of the second Barcelona test. The device looks to have been designed with sponsorship in mind (in the finest F1 traditions), but it is less intrusive to look at than many people felt, although it is hardly aesthetically pleasing. It seems that the designers believe that the depth of focus used by the drivers will render the central column invisible, while the side bars are above the necessary field of vision. In terms of protection, it may still not protect the driver from all flying parts, depending on the angles involved, but it will certainly reduce the risks.

Having said that, it may complicate the extraction of a driver in the case of an accident, a process in which speed can be important. Safety engineers affiliated with the FIA have been looking at ways to protect the drivers from flying parts since 2009 when Felipe Massa was lucky to survive being hit by a spring that had fallen off Rubens Barrichello’s Brawn-Mercedes. Various different solutions have been discussed and even tested and the goal is to have a system, probably the halo, on the cars in 2017. The sport itself seems to be split on whether or not it is a good idea because they fear that it will make the drivers even more remote to the viewers.

I am not sure that is the case, looking at the pictures from Spain as it is not really any different to the kind of protection seen in sprint cars and midgets, although in those cases one can see more of the driver, although they do get obscured with vast wings. The key therefore is to market the drivers better, perhaps even learning a little from the way things are done in the US, while also developing the car numbers more. It seem crazy that most of the cars now feature almost no sponsorship and yet the numbers remain tiny. It makes sense to fill the space with mandated larger numbers, the arguments about sponsorship now being somewhat negated.

Share this:

Related

61 Responses

Even unpainted it almost makes the Ferrari colour scheme make a bit more sense. Also, why would you test something needing driver feedback with Kimi? He’ll either say “It is sh1t” or “it’s ok”, nothing more.

“It seem crazy that most of the cars now feature almost no sponsorship and yet the numbers remain tiny. It makes sense to fill the space with mandated larger numbers, the argument about sponsorship now being somewhat negated.”

While Joe racks up the common sense awards, the powers that be appear to have an empty trophy cabinet in that category..

There’s only so far you can reinforce a helmet before it becomes unwearable by a human being. And the aim is to accept the force of impacts before it transfers into the delicate human brain case. Even the toughest helmet in the world will still be transferring energy into the driver from an impact. It’s a bit like saying get rid of suspension systems and toughen up the tyres. You probably are going to want the suspension to absorb some shock…

The principles of a 1920s racing car were beam axles (ie non independent wheel movement), stiff springing and damping, a rigid chassis and tyres/wheels with a bit of bounce. By the 1930s, engineers had better ideas…

Agreed, AuraF1, about helmets. The basic design of a full face racing helmet hasn’t changed for years. When new materials are adopted, everyone has to consider about how the brain will rattle around in two hard boxes (skull and helmet). If there was a quick answer, manufacturers for the defence industries would have it.

There’s deceleration to consider, if you had an indestructible helmet you would still suffer in a big impact as your brain squashes up against the skull in the direction of the deceleration.

The idea here is to deflect the impact away from the driver’s head or at least begin the deceleration earlier in the process (like a crumple zone in a standard road car that soaks up the worst of the impact before it reaches the driver).

Bloody ugly and how does this prevent an occurrence such as the Massa Hungary thing, or even poor Jules’ accident? If this is a solution, why can we not have fighter jet canopies, where individual designers can be forming better aesthetics and, surely, there can be no penalty regarding drivers escaping their cockpit, a problem sorted in jet planes generations ago.

He’s seen some paddocks, but very few and none for many years before last season. He has someone who gives him guest passes for the paddock. I have never asked him how he earns these. I don’t honestly care. He organises a photo auction for charity. Oddly, I took a great picture this year of Niki Lauda and Toto Wolff holding hands and no-one asked me to sell it for charity, so is charity the real reason for this? The charity thing is not a bad idea for F1, but it is not journalism and people should not be led into thinking that it is.

In my view they should just put a canopy on it and be done with it, or leave it as it is. Works for Prototypes and they can still extract the driver. This looks pretty bad and seems to be a kneejerk solution to Bianchi (which it wouldn’t have helped with) and Wilson (which was a different set of circumstances in a different category).

Alex I imagine if you can stop the helmet being hit at all then you reduce the risk of injury (sudden stops without an head impact can still cause serious injuries of course).

I wonder how they are preventing the halo itself being a danger if it broke? Will it shatter or is it impossible to brake? I can imagine some scenarios where the object would of missed the driver but he could be hit by a broken halo device…

I still fail to see how such a device would have saved the likes of Henry Surtees, Jules Bianchi and Justin Wilson, bearing in mind the nature of the way in which each one of these drivers were killed. Nor would it have saved Fenando Alonso, had Romain Grosjean’s frisbeeing car overhead been just that bit lower.

I think we would need to see more information about exact angles. It is hard to say definitely from video footage. I don’t think there is any way in which this would have helped Bianchi, but it might have worked with Surtees and Wilson

Just a wild thought. Back in ’94 the sides of the cockpits were raised, in such a way that we now can merely see the helmet going from one side to another, but no arms/hands/shoulders movement. I always loved to see the drivers working in their cockpits (yes, I’m that old), see how they take theri corners. Can’t we, along with the halo, make the raised sides single bars (with padding)? That would allow us to see more of the drivers.
As to the canopies, which some of the repliers mention, one wouldn’t see a thing of the drivers anymore (upside: no need to have a helmet design, because no-ons will see them).

Thinking back to the Alonso-Grosjean incident at Spa some years back, I wonder what effect this halo would have had. For example, had the nose of Grosjean’s Renault gone ‘under the lip’ of this halo, wouldn’t the halo have effectively redirected the nose down to driver level, or possibly have flipped Alonso’s or Grosjean’s car?

And with Massa’s incident, what if the top-half of the spring had hit the halo? Wouldn’t there be a possibility that the spring would have been redirected downwards into Massa’s visor, the weak point of any helmet?

Now, I realise that these are purely hypothetical ‘what ifs’, but I’m unconvinced whether such a device is a step forward in safety.

The @scarbsf1 picture of the drivers view shocked me really. The upper part of the halo in front of the driver can obscure a large object quite well, especially when it’s a bit away. I think it could be the same as with the A-pillar in your passenger car. I have the experience that complete cars can hide behind them, especially at roundabouts. (OK, who’s gonna say ‘we don’t have roundabouts in F1’ 🙂

If you are driving at the end of your bonnet (the front of your car) yes the pillar is obtrusive but if you look out and up, look where you are going then the pillar is never seen. No matter the location incl roundabouts.

in their final design, I hope that these ‘halos’ are accompanied by a detachment mechanism that the marshals can activate very quickly when dealing with an emergency driver extraction; explosive bolts?

Now since I saw the halo for real, I’m convinced it will stay – because it got place for Sponsor logos!
I’m also sure that unless the rules are clear and unambiguous (which they rarely are in this sport) some aerodynamic advantages will be found eventually from this device.

What I would like to know is if the same halo design is meant to fit all cars (in which case the design of he cockpit opening would need to remain identical for all cars) or if each team would design their own version. In which case some common design rules like minimum weight, overall dimensions, etc. must also be specified.

I’m also worried that by deflecting objects away from the drivers head, they are potentially presenting an even greater risk to innocent bystander like Marshalls or Spectators.

“Having said that, it may complicate the extraction of a driver in the case of an accident”….Not a problem as long as as a recovery vehicle has reached the car. Hydraulic shears will make short shrift of the hoop and if necessary the driver can be extracted under medical supervision complete with seat (or what passes as a seat these days!). It looks as though it should deflect a wheel or other large object like a rear wing.

No one wants to see harm come to a driver through intrusions, but like the current call for a ban on tackling in schoolboy rugby, I do think the statistics need to be examined a bit more closely. How long before we get to driverless cars – as has been mooted in other places? The engineers would love it and it would be cheaper for the teams!

Let us hope then that all circuits are dead flat, otherwise the Halo horizontal bar may obscure the track in front as a hill is approached. I am sure they thought of that though.
As for canopies, remember Goose! (Top Gun) No it either has to be done LMS style or left as it is. LMS style enclosures would mean F1 became a new concept, though amusingly the reverse has been very successfully tried on Audi LMS cars in the past.

You underestimate the people who deal with this stuff. The FIA has some very brilliant safety engineers and you should have a little more respect for what they do. Believe me, they are a long way ahead of where you are…

I would be very worried if they weren’t Joe.
Looking at the old tests again it seemed to me that the fighter canopy is by far the best, followed by the Lotus (old team) design. there is a good updated article in the current Racecar engineering online mag. But all the same putting things in the driver’s field of view worries me. (I am a natural worrier) (I still hear Ian Taylor saying “Look up and ahead” to the sea of eager faces at Thuxton) I was thinking particularly of Spa in my original comment.
I am personally aware of this, due to my old git status, which shows I have some gaps in my own field of view (physically as well as mentally) as glaucoma approaches and hovers in the near distance.
(Who will be the first journalist to use the term mental glaucoma?)

I have the utmost respect for most (not all) engineers having been in contact with them for most of my working life. I was also taught never to judge an engineer by his current status or job or position. (That’s another story)

Two of our heroes, Stirling Moss and Phil Hill, raced in a land speed record MG. The canopy covered a driver who was racing at 250mph — and stopping was most about reducing methane fumes from the engine before the driver was poisoned.

Modern heroes are different apparently? No, drivers will see through the halo device and go racing.

Whether any of them has the guts of Moss or Hill is up to them to demonstrate.

Everything is different now. But Mr Tremayne’s mates are dicing with a monster with three engines with different fuels and the driver/pilot/of that beast certainly has the guts. Its not F1 but many times faster. Maybe we will see more in GP+. There is a vid on youtube somewhere, of the start-up procedure.

With new aero regulations coming next year this is an ideal time to intergrate a safety feature like this into the design of the cars. A bolt on appendage like this won’t do. Make it part of the car from the very start of design.

Dear Joe, all
Personally, I really don’t care whether it is ugly or not- (a) the current F1 chassis is no oil painting to start with. If I imagine it bolted to, say, a Lotus 72, welllll….. (b) no matter how ugly it is, it is nowhere near as ugly as a driver in a Neuro Intensive Care Unit, on life support, or, worse still, a morgue.
Or, from another angle, akin to the old maxim that any car that is a regular winner is beautiful, any device that can prevent severe injury or death possesses an innate beauty.
Cheers
MarkR

It doesn’t look as bad as I feared. But the aesthetics would be greatly improved if it was introduced alongside a redesign of the whole airbox/rollhoop/engine cover area, to integrate it more tightly into the overall shape. The aero people would probably like that, too.

Also, what Phil said above: putting a camera in it, where the sponsor’s logo is, would mollify a lot of the sceptics.

I don’t think I’m alone in saying it’s not a pretty addition to an (already) unattractive set of cars… But if it improves safety, then I am for it 100%. What I would like to see (now more than ever) are revised rules to completely change the appearance of the cars to account for the halo addition. There has to be a way to make it attractive while keeping full functionality. Ultimately I think using canopies might be the best solution, but I understand why some are against them. I do think it will happen eventually, but I fear it might take another serious injury, or worse, death, for the halo to canopy transition to happen.

The thing that disturbs me is that this system will find its way down to lower formulas just has the HANS device has. I’ve had many roll overs of Formula Ford’s and in particular Formula Vee (1200cc) where I’ve helped drivers get out from under the car, one where hot oil was draining into the cockpit over the driver. We are always told not to roll a car over but wait until until emergency extraction teams get there – Indy Car in particular hold to this rule, (and its a good rule in general).

The loophole is that we can ‘assist’ a driver that is determined he is getting out with or without our help. Having a device pinned shut by the weight of a car turned turtle with a fire starting is not a situation I hope to face. In amateur racing where seconds count and we don’t always have a ‘safety team’ a few corners away, I’m thinking we have an unintended new problem here.

I recall the first year of hybrid use in F1 where the issuing of rubber gloves was a last minute thought to intervention marshals at my home GP and where we found our hands sweating inside these gloves after a few minutes of our first recovery attempt on wet grass.

Forgive me if I have a healthy dose of skepticism of new F1 idea/devices.